4 ms·

I definitely get this argument but take some pictures with the newest iPhone, compare with some pictures taken with one of those fancy Canon cameras, and the di

by rtpg 8y ago

I definitely get this argument but take some pictures with the newest iPhone, compare with some pictures taken with one of those fancy Canon cameras, and the difference is night and day. With almost no effort a really nice camera will produce shots that are extremely hard to do nicely with an iPhone It’s also the difference between a random bike and something really well maintained with tires pumped to perfection. Super expensive bikes won’t get you to the Tour de France, but it sure makes riding a lot easier

fermienrico 8y ago
No doubt, fancy cameras are designed specifically to produce better quality images. I think the core of the issue that I am getting at is how the average consumer spends thousands of dollars on their gear. Pixel peeping, gear talk, MTF curves, the bokeh battle, the whole culture is preoccupied with the details. And yet, they don't have anything to show for it in terms of results. To me personally, it doesn't bring joy. Joy to me is creating something incredible that is avant-garde, unique and something that gives me goosebumps. To others, amazing gear brings joy so there is something to be said about consumer spending in form of stress therapy. The other point is that it creates an artificial barrier to newcomers where there is so much chatter about this gear and that gear.
- 0x38B 8y ago
  I remember reading through interesting threads on Rangefinder Forum's Philosophy of Photography section(1) that shaped my thinking on photography: For many, great technical skills and gear are the end. For artists, they're the beginning. After all, what do we do but capture fleeting moments in a living world? Looking at moments, captured, we experience the same spark, the same life, that the photographer saw. We connect, as humans. That's powerful. The lenses, cameras, and phones that we love to obsess over are great. I love gear as much as the next person. But gear is dead, where the world around is brimming with life. And to obsess over the gear at the expense of the art waiting for us outside the window and over the hill is to lose something precious. 1: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=136 https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1... "Taking pics is one thing, but understanding why we take them, what they mean, what they are best used for, how they effect our reality -- all of these and more are important issues of the Philosophy of Photography. One of the best authors on the subject is Susan Sontag in her book "On Photography.""
joshvm 8y ago
Aside from framing, the reason the footage looks is well-controlled lighting and good camera mounting. Any camera will take a good photo outdoors in sunlight, but indoors it's all about how the scene is lit. SLRs have enormous sensors. The largest common sensor size in computer vision is 1". That's smaller than micro 4/3. APS-C and full frame are huge. Big sensor means more photons, which means less noisy images. Combine that with a big ol' lens and a good processor and you get nice well-exposed images without any effort. People are disappointed by phone images because they take snaps indoors or in low light, and their pictures come out grainy and noisy. In the iPad Pro advert the scenes are lit so brightly that the sensitivity of the sensor is basically meaningless.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- criddell 8y ago
  > People are disappointed by phone images You think? I'm amazed by the photos I get on my phone (Pixel) and that my wife takes with her iPhone. The low light performance is especially shocking. I used to have an SLR and sometimes I think about getting a Leica just because they are beautiful, but if I'm honest my phone is a better camera than I really need.
  - zeristor 8y ago
    I have family pictures taken on a Kodak Discman from the 80’s, which is of similar thickness but the photos are terrible. So I appreciate the quality of mobile phone photography in such a small form factor
- snazz 8y ago
  People also seem to be enamored with bokeh (the blurred background), which is far easier to achieve on a full-size camera at a wide-open aperture than on a phone. Portrait mode and similar have been able to emulate the effect, but they still look very fake in comparison.
- i_am_proteus 8y ago
endorphone 8y ago
The one gap that smartphones still have is depth of field versatility, which is a function contingent on focal depth and it's impossible to build into tiny cameras. Having said that, depth of field versatility is only one tool, and often it's a hindrance rather than a help (e.g. we're trying to find the hyperfocal depth and maximize depth of field). For a wide gamut of photography realms such as landscape photography, city life, etc, it is absolutely true that a modern smartphone can compete with any SLR and create perfect results.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
ummonk 8y ago
With a lens added, the iPhone will beat most fancy digital cameras.
saberience 8y ago
I sort of agree with you, except the difference is really far more to do with the lenses. I have a "fancy" Nikon camera but the fancy part is really in the variety of lenses I have. What the lenses do is give you more options for photo taking in situations where your phone cameras have difficulty. This is usually to do with tricky light situations. For example, having large, fast lenses for night time shooting. If I was just shooting vanilla day time photos in well lit situations I could make extremely passable photos with any of the modern iPhones.
- smnscu 8y ago
  Also, sensor size. There's only so much you can do with way fewer photons. Imagine what the insanely clever/powerful iPhone/Google Pixel brains could do with proper lenses and sensors.

by rtpg 8y ago

fermienrico 8y ago

No doubt, fancy cameras are designed specifically to produce better quality images. I think the core of the issue that I am getting at is how the average consumer spends thousands of dollars on their gear. Pixel peeping, gear talk, MTF curves, the bokeh battle, the whole culture is preoccupied with the details. And yet, they don't have anything to show for it in terms of results. To me personally, it doesn't bring joy. Joy to me is creating something incredible that is avant-garde, unique and something that gives me goosebumps. To others, amazing gear brings joy so there is something to be said about consumer spending in form of stress therapy. The other point is that it creates an artificial barrier to newcomers where there is so much chatter about this gear and that gear.

0x38B 8y ago
I remember reading through interesting threads on Rangefinder Forum's Philosophy of Photography section(1) that shaped my thinking on photography: For many, great technical skills and gear are the end. For artists, they're the beginning. After all, what do we do but capture fleeting moments in a living world? Looking at moments, captured, we experience the same spark, the same life, that the photographer saw. We connect, as humans. That's powerful. The lenses, cameras, and phones that we love to obsess over are great. I love gear as much as the next person. But gear is dead, where the world around is brimming with life. And to obsess over the gear at the expense of the art waiting for us outside the window and over the hill is to lose something precious. 1: https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=136 https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=1... "Taking pics is one thing, but understanding why we take them, what they mean, what they are best used for, how they effect our reality -- all of these and more are important issues of the Philosophy of Photography. One of the best authors on the subject is Susan Sontag in her book "On Photography.""

joshvm 8y ago

Aside from framing, the reason the footage looks is well-controlled lighting and good camera mounting. Any camera will take a good photo outdoors in sunlight, but indoors it's all about how the scene is lit. SLRs have enormous sensors. The largest common sensor size in computer vision is 1". That's smaller than micro 4/3. APS-C and full frame are huge. Big sensor means more photons, which means less noisy images. Combine that with a big ol' lens and a good processor and you get nice well-exposed images without any effort. People are disappointed by phone images because they take snaps indoors or in low light, and their pictures come out grainy and noisy. In the iPad Pro advert the scenes are lit so brightly that the sensitivity of the sensor is basically meaningless.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
criddell 8y ago
> People are disappointed by phone images You think? I'm amazed by the photos I get on my phone (Pixel) and that my wife takes with her iPhone. The low light performance is especially shocking. I used to have an SLR and sometimes I think about getting a Leica just because they are beautiful, but if I'm honest my phone is a better camera than I really need.
- zeristor 8y ago
  I have family pictures taken on a Kodak Discman from the 80’s, which is of similar thickness but the photos are terrible. So I appreciate the quality of mobile phone photography in such a small form factor
snazz 8y ago
People also seem to be enamored with bokeh (the blurred background), which is far easier to achieve on a full-size camera at a wide-open aperture than on a phone. Portrait mode and similar have been able to emulate the effect, but they still look very fake in comparison.
i_am_proteus 8y ago

endorphone 8y ago

The one gap that smartphones still have is depth of field versatility, which is a function contingent on focal depth and it's impossible to build into tiny cameras. Having said that, depth of field versatility is only one tool, and often it's a hindrance rather than a help (e.g. we're trying to find the hyperfocal depth and maximize depth of field). For a wide gamut of photography realms such as landscape photography, city life, etc, it is absolutely true that a modern smartphone can compete with any SLR and create perfect results.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

ummonk 8y ago

With a lens added, the iPhone will beat most fancy digital cameras.

saberience 8y ago

I sort of agree with you, except the difference is really far more to do with the lenses. I have a "fancy" Nikon camera but the fancy part is really in the variety of lenses I have. What the lenses do is give you more options for photo taking in situations where your phone cameras have difficulty. This is usually to do with tricky light situations. For example, having large, fast lenses for night time shooting. If I was just shooting vanilla day time photos in well lit situations I could make extremely passable photos with any of the modern iPhones.

smnscu 8y ago
Also, sensor size. There's only so much you can do with way fewer photons. Imagine what the insanely clever/powerful iPhone/Google Pixel brains could do with proper lenses and sensors.